Table 1
Role or Position in Organization
Role or Position in Organization
Percentage of Respondents
Number of Respondents
Senior management (e.g. Director, Dean, associate dean/director)
9.09%
55
Middle management (e.g. department head, supervisor, coordinator)
20.00%
121
Specialist or professional (e.g., librarian, analyst, consultant)
60.99%
369
Support staff or administrative
8.93%
54
Other
0.99%
6
Most of the respondents were primarily involved in Reference and Research Services (25.17%) or Library Instruction and Information Literacy (24.34%)—two areas integral to the academic support infrastructure.
In terms of professional experience, participants exhibited a broad range, from novices with less than a year’s experience (2.81%) to seasoned veterans with over 20 years in the field (22.68%).
Table 2 | ||
Primary Work Area in Academic Librarianship | ||
Primary Work Area in Academic Librarianship | Percentage of Respondents | Number of Respondents |
Administration or management | 10.93% | 66 |
Reference and research services | 25.17% | 152 |
Technical services (e.g., acquisitions, cataloging, metadata) | 8.11% | 49 |
Collection development and management | 4.64% | 28 |
Library instruction and information literacy | 24.34% | 147 |
Electronic resources and digital services | 4.30% | 26 |
Systems and IT services | 3.64% | 22 |
Archives and special collections | 3.31% | 20 |
Outreach, marketing, and communications | 1.66% | 10 |
Other | 13.91% | 84 |
|
|
|
Table 3 | ||
Years of Experience as a Library Employee | ||
Years of Experience as a Library Employee | Percentage of Respondents | Number of Respondents |
Less than 1 year | 2.81% | 17 |
1–5 years | 21.19% | 128 |
6–10 years | 19.54% | 118 |
11–15 years | 19.04% | 115 |
16–20 years | 14.74% | 89 |
More than 20 years | 22.68% | 137 |
|
|
|
The survey group was highly educated, with most holding a master’s degree in library and information science (65.51%), and a significant number having completed a doctoral degree or a master’s in another field.
The survey also collected demographic information. A substantial majority identified as female (71.97%), and the largest age group was 35–44 years (27.97%). While the majority identified as White (76.11%), other ethnicities, including Asian, Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino, were also represented.
This diverse participant profile offers a broad-based view of AI literacy in the academic library landscape, setting the stage for insightful findings and discussions.
Table 4 | ||
Level of Understanding of AI Concepts and Principles | ||
Level of Understanding of AI Concepts and Principles | % of Respondents | Number of Respondents |
1 (Very Low) | 7.50% | 57 |
2 | 20.13% | 153 |
3 (Moderate) | 45.39% | 345 |
4 | 23.29% | 177 |
5 (Very High) | 3.68% | 28 |
At a broad level, participants expressed a modest understanding of AI concepts and principles, with a significant portion rating their knowledge at an average level. However, the number of respondents professing a high understanding of AI was quite small, revealing a potential area for further training and education.
A similar pattern was observed when participants were queried about their understanding of generative AI specifically. This suggests that while librarians have begun to grasp AI and its potential, there is a considerable scope for growth in terms of knowledge and implementation (Figure 1).
Figure 1 |
Understanding of Generative AI |
|
Regarding the familiarity with AI tools, most participants had a moderate level of experience (30.94%). Only a handful of participants reported a high level of familiarity (3.87%), signaling an opportunity for more hands-on training with these tools.
In examining the prevalence of AI usage in the library sector, the researcher found a varied landscape. While some technologies have found significant adoption, others remain relatively unused. Notably, Chatbots and text or data mining tools were the most widely used AI technologies.
Participants’ understanding of specific AI concepts followed a similar trend. More straightforward concepts such as Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing had a higher average rating, whereas complex areas like Deep Learning and Generative Adversarial Networks were less understood. This trend underscores the need for targeted educational programs on AI in library settings.
Table 5 | |
Understanding of Specific AI Concepts | |
AI Concept | Average Rating |
Machine Learning | 2.50 |
Natural Language Processing (NLP) | 2.38 |
Neural Network | 1.93 |
Deep Learning | 1.79 |
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) | 1.37 |
Notably, there was almost a nine percent drop in responses from the previous questions to the questions that asked about the more technical aspects of AI. This could signify a gap in knowledge or comfort level with these topics among the participants.
In the professional sphere, AI tools have yet to become a staple in library work. The majority of participants do not frequently use these tools, with 41.79% never using generative AI tools and 28.01% using them less than once a month. This might be attributed to a lack of familiarity, resources, or perceived need. However, for those who do use them, text generation and research assistance are the primary use cases.
Concerns about ethical issues, quality, and accuracy of generated content, as well as data privacy, were prevalent among the participants. This finding indicates that while there’s interest in AI technologies, the perceived challenges are significant barriers to full implementation and adoption.
In their personal lives, AI tools have yet to make a significant impact among the participants. The majority (63.98%) reported using these tools either ‘less than once a month’ or ‘never.’ This could potentially reflect the current state of AI integration in non-professional or leisurely activities, and may change as AI continues to permeate our everyday lives.
A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relation between the position of the respondent and the understanding of AI concepts and principles. The relation between these variables was significant, χ 2 (16, N = 760) = 26.31, p = .05. This means that the understanding of AI concepts and principles varies depending on the position of the respondent.
The distributions suggest that—while there is a significant association between the position of the respondent and their understanding of AI concepts and principles—the majority of respondents across all positions have a moderate understanding of AI. However, there are differences in the proportions of respondents who rate their understanding as high or very high, with Senior Management and Middle Management having higher proportions than the other groups.
There is also a significant relation between the area of academic librarianship and the understanding of AI concepts and principles, χ²(36, N = 760) = 68.64, p = .00084. This means that the understanding of AI concepts and principles varies depending on the area of academic librarianship. The distributions show that there are differences in the proportions of respondents who rate their understanding as high or very high, with Administration or management and Library Instruction and Information Literacy having higher proportions than the other groups.
Furthermore, a Chi-Square test shows that the relation between the payment for a premium version of at least one of the AI tools and the understanding of AI concepts and principles is significant, χ²(4, N = 539) = 85.42, p < .001. The distributions suggest that respondents who have paid for a premium version of at least one of the AI tools have a higher understanding of AI concepts and principles compared to those who have not. This could be because those who have paid for a premium version of an AI tool are more likely to use AI in their work or personal life, which could enhance their understanding of AI. Alternatively, those with a higher understanding of AI might be more likely to see the value in paying for a premium version of an AI tool.
It’s important to note that these findings are based on the respondents’ self-rated understanding of AI, which may not accurately reflect their actual understanding. Further research could involve assessing the respondents’ understanding of AI through objective measures. Additionally, other factors not considered in this analysis, such as the respondent’s educational background, years of experience, and exposure to AI in their work, could also influence their understanding of AI.
In this section, the researcher delved deeper into the gaps in knowledge and confidence among academic library professionals regarding AI applications. These gaps highlight the urgent need for targeted professional development and training in AI literacy.
The survey data pointed to moderate levels of confidence across a spectrum of AI-related tasks, indicating room for growth and learning. For evaluating ethical implications of using AI, a modest 30.12% of respondents felt somewhat confident (levels 4 and 5 combined), while 29.50% were not confident (levels 1 and 2 combined), and the largest group (39.38%) remained neutral.
Discussing AI integration revealed similar patterns. Here, 31.1% reported high confidence, 34.85% expressed low confidence, and the remaining 33.06% were neutral. These distributions suggest an overall hesitation or lack of assurance in discussing and ethically implementing AI, potentially indicative of inadequate training or exposure to these topics.
When it came to collaborating on AI-related projects, fewer respondents (31.39%) felt confident, while 40.16% reported low confidence, and 28.46% chose a neutral stance. This might point to the necessity of not only individual proficiency in AI but also the need for collaborative skills and shared understanding among teams working with AI.
Troubleshooting AI tools and applications emerged as the most significant gap, with 69.76% rating their confidence as low and only 10.9% expressing high confidence. This highlights an essential area for targeted training, as troubleshooting is a fundamental aspect of successful technology implementation.
Table 6 | |||||
Confidence Levels in Various Aspects of AI | |||||
Aspect | % at Confidence Level 1 | % at Confidence Level 2 | % at Confidence Level 3 | % at Confidence Level 4 | % at Confidence Level 5 |
Evaluating Ethical Implications of AI | 12.48% | 17.02% | 39.38% | 24.64% | 6.48% |
Participating in AI Discussions | 13.29% | 21.56% | 33.06% | 20.75% | 11.35% |
Collaborating on AI Projects | 15.77% | 24.39% | 28.46% | 21.63% | 9.76% |
Troubleshooting AI Tools | 41.79% | 27.97% | 19.35% | 9.76% | 1.14% |
Providing Guidance on AI Resources | 25.65% | 24.51% | 25.81% | 20.13% | 3.90% |
Approximately one-third of survey participants have engaged in AI-focused professional development, showcasing several key themes:
The findings emphasize the multifaceted nature of AI in libraries, underlining the need for ongoing, comprehensive professional development. This includes addressing both technical and ethical aspects, equipping librarians with practical AI skills, and fostering a supportive community of practice.
A Chi-square test examining the relationship between the respondents’ positions and their participation in any training focused on generative AI (χ²(4, N = 595) = 26.72, p < .001) indicates a significant association. Upon examining the data, the proportion of respondents who have participated in training or professional development programs focused on generative AI is highest among those in Senior Management (47.27%), followed by Specialist or Professional (37.40%), Middle Management (29.75%), and Other (16.67%). The proportion is lowest among Support Staff or Administrative (3.70%).
This suggests that individuals in higher positions, such as Senior Management and Specialist or Professional roles, are more likely to have participated in training or professional development programs focused on generative AI. This could be due to a variety of reasons, such as these roles potentially requiring a more in-depth understanding of AI and its applications, or these individuals having more access to resources and opportunities for such training. On the other hand, Support Staff or Administrative personnel are less likely to have participated in such programs, which could be due to less perceived need or fewer opportunities for training in these roles.
These findings highlight the importance of providing access to training and professional development opportunities focused on AI across all roles in an organization, not just those in higher positions or those directly involved in AI-related tasks. This could help ensure a more widespread understanding and utilization of AI across the organization.
Despite these efforts, many participants did not feel adequately prepared to utilize generative AI tools professionally. A notable 62.91% disagreed to some extent with the statement: “I feel adequately prepared to use generative AI tools in my professional work as a librarian,” underscoring the need for more effective training programs.
Interestingly, the areas identified for further training weren’t just about understanding the basics of AI. Participants showed a clear demand for advanced understanding of AI concepts and techniques (13.53%), familiarity with AI tools and applications in libraries (14.21%), and addressing privacy and data security concerns related to generative AI (14.36%). This suggests that librarians are looking to move beyond a basic understanding and are keen to engage more deeply with AI.
Preferred formats for professional development opportunities leaned towards remote and flexible learning opportunities, such as online courses or webinars (26.02%) and self-paced learning modules (22.44%). This preference reflects the current trend towards digital and remote learning, providing a clear direction for future training programs.
Notably, almost half of the participants (43.99%) rated the need for academic librarians to receive training on AI tools and applications within the next twelve months as ‘extremely important.’ This emphasis on urgency indicates a significant and immediate gap to be addressed.
In summary, a deeper analysis of the data reveals a landscape where academic librarians possess moderate to low confidence in understanding, discussing, and handling AI-related tasks, despite some exposure to professional development in AI. This finding indicates the need for more comprehensive, in-depth, and accessible AI training programs. By addressing these knowledge gaps, the library community can effectively embrace AI’s potential and navigate its challenges.
The comprehensive results of our survey, as illustrated in Table 7, offer a detailed portrait of librarians’ perceptions towards the integration of generative AI tools in library services and operations.
Table 7 | |||||
Perceptions Towards the Integration of Generative AI Tools In Library Services | |||||
Statement | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “I believe generative AI tools have the potential to benefit library services and operations.” (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) | 3.32% | 10.96% | 35.88% | 27.91% | 21.93% |
How important do you think it is for your library to invest in the exploration and implementation of generative AI tools? (1 = not at all important, 5 = extremely important) | 7.24% | 15.95% | 29.93% | 28.78% | 18.09% |
In your opinion, how prepared is your library to adopt generative AI tools and applications in the next 12 months? (1 = not at all prepared, 5 = extremely prepared) | 32.28% | 37.75% | 23.84% | 4.80% | 1.32% |
To what extent do you think generative AI tools and applications will have a significant impact on academic libraries within the next 12 months? (1 = no impact, 5 = major impact) | 2.81% | 20.03% | 36.09% | 26.16% | 14.90% |
How urgent do you feel it is for your library to address the potential ethical and privacy concerns related to the use of generative AI tools and applications? (1 = not at all urgent, 5 = extremely urgent) | 2.15% | 5.46% | 18.05% | 29.47% | 44.87% |
When considering the potential benefits of AI, the responses indicate a degree of ambivalence, with 35.88% choosing a neutral stance. However, when we combine the categories of those who ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree,’ we see that a significant portion, 49.84%, view AI as beneficial to a certain extent. Similarly, on the question of the importance of investment in AI, there is a notable inclination towards agreement, with 46.87% agreeing that investment is important to some degree.
However, this optimism is juxtaposed with concerns about readiness. When asked how prepared they feel to adopt generative AI tools within the forthcoming year, 70.03% of respondents (those who ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’) admit a lack of preparedness. This suggests that despite recognizing the potential value of AI, there are considerable obstacles to be overcome before implementation becomes feasible.
The uncertainty surrounding AI’s impact on libraries in the short-term further illuminates this complexity. A significant proportion of librarians (36.09%) chose a neutral response when asked to predict the impact of AI on academic libraries within the next twelve months. Nonetheless, there is a considerable group (41.06% who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’) who foresee significant short-term impact.
A key finding from the survey was the collective recognition of the urgency to address ethical and privacy issues tied to AI usage. In fact, 74.34% of respondents, spanning ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree,’ underscored the urgent need to address potential ethical and privacy concerns related to AI, highlighting the weight of responsibility librarians feel in maintaining the integrity of their services in the age of AI (Figure 2).
Figure 2 |
Perceived Urgency for Addressing Ethical and Privacy Concerns of Generative AI in Libraries |
|
The qualitative responses provide a rich understanding of the perceptions of generative AI among library professionals and the implications they foresee for the library profession. The responses were categorized into several key themes, each of which is discussed below with relevant quotes from the respondents.
A significant theme that emerged from the responses was the ethical and privacy concerns associated with the use of generative AI tools in libraries. Respondents expressed apprehension about potential misuse of data and violations of privacy. As one respondent noted, “Library leaders should not rush to implement AI tools without listening to their in-house experts and operational managers.” Another respondent cautioned, “We need to be cautious about adopting technologies or practices within our own workflows that pose significant ethical questions, privacy concerns.”
The need for education and training on AI for librarians was another prevalent theme. Respondents emphasized the importance of understanding AI tools and their implications before implementing them. One respondent suggested: “quickly education on AI is needed for librarians. As with anything else, there will be early adopters and then a range of adoption over time.” Another respondent highlighted the need for an AI specialist, stating, “I also think it would be valuable to have an AI librarian, someone who can be a resource for the rest of the staff.”
Respondents expressed concern about the potential for misuse of AI tools, such as generating false citations or over-reliance on AI systems. They emphasized the importance of critical thinking skills, and cautioned against replacing human judgment and learning processes with AI. As one respondent put it, “Critical thinking skills and learning processes are vital and should not be replaced by AI.” Another respondent warned: “there are potential risks from misuse such as false citations being provided or too much dependence on systems.”
Several respondents expressed doubts about the ability of libraries to quickly and effectively implement AI tools. They cited issues such as frequent updates and refinements to AI tools, the need for significant investment, and the potential for AI to be used in ways that do not benefit the library or its users. One respondent noted, “the concern I have with AI tools is the frequent updates and refinements that occur. For libraries with small staff size, it seems daunting to keep up.”
Some respondents suggested specific ways in which AI could be used in libraries, such as for collection development, instruction, and answering frequently asked questions. However, they also cautioned against viewing AI as a panacea for all library challenges. One respondent stated: “using them for FAQs will be more useful than answering a complicated reference question.”
Some respondents expressed concern that the use of AI could lead to job displacement or a devaluation of the human elements of librarianship. They suggested that AI should be used to complement, not replace, human librarians. One respondent expressed that, “I could see a future where only top research institutions have human reference librarians as a concierge service.”
Respondents emphasized the need for critical evaluation of AI tools, including understanding their limitations and potential biases. They suggested that libraries should not rush to implement AI without fully understanding its implications. One respondent advised: “the framing of AI usage as a forgone conclusion is concerning. It’s a tool, not a solution, and should not be implemented without due consideration.”
Some respondents suggested that libraries have a role to play in teaching AI literacy to students and other library users. They emphasized the importance of understanding how AI tools work and how to use them responsibly. One respondent stated: “I think we need to teach AI literacy to students.” Another respondent echoed this sentiment, saying, “it is essential that we prepare our students to use generative AI tools responsibly.”
The perceptions of generative AI among library professionals are multifaceted, encompassing both the potential benefits and challenges of these technologies. While there is recognition of the potential of AI to enhance library services, there is also a strong emphasis on the need for ethical considerations, education and training, critical evaluation, and responsible use of these tools. The implications for the library profession are significant, with concerns about job displacement, the need for new skills and roles, and the potential for changes in library practices and services. These findings highlight the need for ongoing dialogue and research on the use of generative AI in libraries.
While library employees acknowledge the potential advantages of AI in library services, they also express concerns regarding readiness, and emphasize the urgency to address ethical and privacy considerations. These findings indicate the need for support systems, training, and resources to address readiness gaps, alongside rigorous discussion, and guidelines to navigate ethical and privacy issues as libraries explore the possibilities of AI integration.
The survey results cast light on the current state of artificial intelligence literacy, training needs, and perceptions within the academic library community. The findings reveal a landscape of recognition for the potential of AI technologies, yet, simultaneously, a lack of in-depth understanding and preparedness for their adoption.
A detailed examination of the data reveals that a considerable number of library professionals self-assess their understanding of AI as sitting around, or below, the middle. While this does suggest a basic level of familiarity with AI concepts and principles, it likely falls short of the proficiency required to navigate the rapidly evolving AI landscape confidently and competently. This gap in understanding holds implications for the library field as AI continues to infiltrate various sectors and increasingly permeates library services and operations.
Moreover, an analysis of the familiarity of library professionals with AI tools lends further credence to this call for more comprehensive AI education initiatives. An understanding of AI extends beyond mere theoretical comprehension—it necessitates hands-on familiarity with AI tools and the ability to use and apply them in practice. Direct interaction with AI technologies provides an avenue for library professionals to bolster their practical understanding and thus equip them to incorporate these tools into their work more effectively.
However, formulating training initiatives that address these gaps is a multifaceted task. The AI usage in libraries is as diverse as the scope of AI applications themselves. From customer service chatbots, and text or data mining tools, to advanced technologies like neural networks and deep learning systems—each offers unique applications and therefore requires distinct expertise and understanding. Accordingly, training programs must be flexible and comprehensive, encompassing the full range of potential AI applications while also delving deep enough to provide a solid grasp of each specific tool’s functionality and potential uses.
The study also sheds light on the varying degrees of understanding across different AI concepts. Participants generally exhibited a higher level of comprehension for simpler AI concepts. However, their understanding waned when it came to more complex concepts, often the bedrock of cutting-edge AI applications. This variation in comprehension underscores the need for a stratified approach to AI education. Such an approach could start with foundational concepts and gradually progress towards more advanced topics, providing a scaffold on which a deeper understanding of AI can be built.
Addressing the AI literacy gap in the library sector thus requires a concerted approach—one that offers comprehensive and layered educational strategies that bolster both theoretical understanding and practical familiarity with AI. The aim should not only be to impart knowledge, but to empower library professionals to confidently navigate the AI landscape, to adopt and adapt AI technologies in their work effectively and—crucially —responsibly. Through such training and professional development initiatives, libraries can harness the potential of AI, ensuring they continue to be at the forefront of technological advancements.
As the focus shifts to the professional use of AI tools in libraries, the data reveal that their adoption is not yet commonplace. The use of AI tools—such as text generation and research assistance—are most reported, reflecting the immediate utility these technologies offer to librarians. However, a significant proportion of participants do not frequently use AI tools, indicating barriers to adoption. These barriers could include a lack of understanding or familiarity with these tools, a perceived lack of necessity for their use, or limitations in resources necessary for implementation and maintenance. To overcome these barriers, the field may need more than just providing education and resources. Demonstrating the tangible benefits and efficiencies AI tools can bring to library work could play a pivotal role in their wider adoption.
The data show a strong enthusiasm among librarians for professional development related to AI. While introductory training modalities are popular, the findings reveal a demand for more advanced, hands-on training. This need aligns with the complexity and rapid evolution of AI technologies, which require a deeper understanding to be fully leveraged in library contexts.
Furthermore, the findings highlight the importance of ethical considerations and the potential benefits of fostering communities of practice in AI training. With the increasing integration of AI technology into library services, the issues related to AI ethics will likely become more complex. Proactively addressing these concerns through in-depth, focused training can help libraries continue to serve as ethical stewards of information. Communities of practice provide a platform for shared learning, mutual support, and the pooling of resources, equipping librarians to better navigate the intricacies of AI integration.
Importantly, the data show that the diversity in librarians’ roles and contexts necessitates a tailored approach to AI training. Libraries differ in their services, target audiences, resources, and strategic goals, and so do their AI training needs. A one-size-fits-all approach to AI training may fall short. Future AI training could therefore take these variations into account, offering specialized tracks or modules catering to specific roles or institutional contexts.
Likewise, the perceptions surrounding the use of generative AI tools in libraries are intricate and multifaceted. While the potential benefits of AI are acknowledged and the importance of investing in its implementation recognized, there is also a pronounced lack of readiness to adopt these tools. This readiness gap could stem from various factors, such as a lack of technical skills, insufficient funding, or institutional resistance. Future research should delve into these possibilities to better understand and address this gap.
Library professionals express uncertainty about the short-term implications of AI for libraries. This could reflect the novelty of these technologies and a lack of clear use cases, or it could echo the experiences of early adopters. The findings also emphasize a heightened sense of urgency in addressing the ethical and privacy concerns associated with AI technologies. These concerns underline the necessity for ongoing dialogue, education, and policy development around AI use in libraries.
The results reveal an intricate landscape of AI understanding, usage, and perception in the library field. While the benefits of AI tools are acknowledged, a comprehensive understanding and readiness to implement these technologies remain less than ideal. This reality underlines the pressing need for an investment in targeted educational strategies and ongoing professional development initiatives.
Crucially, the wide variance in AI literacy, understanding of AI concepts, and hands-on familiarity with AI tools among library professionals points towards the need for a stratified and tailored approach to AI education. Future training programs must aim beyond just knowledge acquisition—they must equip library professionals with the capabilities to apply AI technologies in their roles effectively, ethically, and responsibly. Ethical and privacy concerns emerged as significant considerations in the adoption of AI technologies in libraries. Our findings reinforce the crucial role that libraries have historically played, and must continue to play, in advocating for ethical information practices.
The readiness gap in AI adoption uncovered by the study suggests a disconnect between understanding the potential of AI and the ability to harness it effectively. This invites a deeper investigation into potential barriers, including technical proficiency, resource allocation, and institutional culture, among others.
This study presents a framework for defining AI literacy in academic libraries, encapsulating seven key competencies:
This multidimensional definition of AI literacy for libraries provides a foundation for developing comprehensive training programs and curricula. For instance, the need to understand AI system capabilities and limitations highlighted in the definition indicates that introductory AI education should provide a solid grounding in how common AI technologies like machine learning work, where they excel, and their constraints. This conceptual comprehension equips librarians to set realistic expectations when evaluating or implementing AI.
The definition also accentuates that gaining practical skills to use AI tools appropriately should be a core training component. Hands-on learning focused on identifying appropriate applications, utilizing AI technologies effectively, and critically evaluating outputs can empower librarians to harness AI purposefully.
Moreover, emphasizing critical perspectives and ethical considerations reflects that AI training for librarians should move beyond technical proficiency. Incorporating modules examining biases, privacy implications, misinformation risks, and societal impacts is key for fostering responsible AI integration.
Likewise, the collaborative dimension of the definition demonstrates that cultivating soft skills for productive AI discussions and teamwork should be part of the curriculum. AI literacy has an important social element that training programs need to nurture.
Overall, this definition provides a skills framework that can inform multipronged, context-sensitive AI training tailored to librarians’ diverse needs. It constitutes an actionable guide for developing AI curricula and professional development that advance both technical and social aspects of AI literacy.
Based on the findings and limitations of the current study, the following are specific recommendations for future research:
By pursuing these avenues for future research, we can continue to deepen our understanding of AI literacy in the library profession, inform strategies for enhancing AI literacy, and promote the effective and ethical use of AI in libraries.
Cetindamar, D., Kitto, K., Wu, M., Zhang, Y., Abedin, B., & Knight, S. (2021). Explicating AI literacy of employees at digital workplaces. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 68(5), 1259–1271.
Cox, A. (2022). The ethics of AI for information professionals: Eight scenarios. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association , 71(3), 201–214.
Heck, T., Weisel, L., & Kullmann, S. (2019). Information literacy and its interplay with AI . In A. Botte, P. Libbrecht, & M. Rittberger (Eds.), Learning Information Literacy Across the Globe (pp. 129–131). https://doi.org/10.25656/01:17891
Hervieux, S., & Wheatley, A. (2021). Perceptions of artificial intelligence: A survey of academic librarians in Canada and the United States. The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 47(1), 102270.
Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., & Raupach, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 3, 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100101
Lo, L. S. (2023a). An initial interpretation of the U.S. Department of Education’s AI report: Implications and recommendations for Academic Libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 49(5), 102761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102761
Lo, L. S. (2023b). The art and science of prompt engineering: A new literacy in the information age. Internet Reference Services Quarterly , 27(4), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2023.2227621
Lo, L. S. (2023c). The clear path: A framework for enhancing information literacy through prompt engineering. The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 49(4), 102720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102720
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: artificial intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 74(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
McKinsey & Company. (2023). The state of AI in 2023 : Generative AI’s breakout year . McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-analytics/our-insights/the-state-of-ai-in-2023-generative-ais-breakout-year
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record , 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education , 35(2), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041
Ocaña-Fernández, Y., Valenzuela-Fernández, L., & Garro-Aburto, L. (2019). Artificial intelligence and its implications in higher education. Propósitos y Representaciones , 7(2), 536–568. https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2019.v7n2.274
Oliphant, T. (2015). Social media and web 2.0 in information literacy education in libraries: New directions for self-directed learning in the digital age. Journal of Information Literacy , 9(2), 37–49.
Pinski, M., & Benlian, A. (2023). AI literacy—Towards measuring human competency in artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2023.012
Ridley, M., & Pawlick-Potts, D. (2021). Algorithmic literacy and the role for libraries. Information Technology and Libraries , 40(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i2.12963
Sobel, K., & Grotti, M.G. (2013). Using the TPACK framework to facilitate decision making on instructional technologies. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship , 25(4), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2013.847671
UNESCO. (2021). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers . United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000376709
U.S. Department of Education. (2023). (rep.). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations . Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/documents/ai-report/ai-report.pdf .
Survey flow.
Standard: Block 1 (1 Question)
Block: Knowledge and Familiarity (12 Questions)
Standard: Perceived Competence and Gaps in AI Literacy (5 Questions)
Standard: Training on Generative AI for Librarians (6 Questions)
Standard: Desired Use of Generative AI in Libraries (7 Questions)
Standard: Demographic (10 Questions)
Standard: End of Survey (1 Question)
Start of Block: Block 1
Dr. Leo Lo from the University of New Mexico is conducting a research project. You are invited to participate in a research study aiming to assess AI literacy among academic library employees, identify gaps in AI literacy that require further professional development and training, and understand the differences in AI literacy levels across different roles and demographic factors. Before you begin the survey, please read this Informed Consent Form carefully. Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may choose to withdraw at any time without any consequences.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to the development of computer systems and software that can perform tasks that would typically require human intelligence. These tasks may include problem-solving, learning, understanding natural language, recognizing patterns, perception, and decision-making
You are being asked to participate based of the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current AI literacy levels of academic librarians and identify areas where further training and development may be needed. The findings will help inform the design of targeted professional development programs and contribute to the understanding of AI literacy in the library profession.
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey that will take approximately 15–20 minutes to complete. The survey includes questions about your AI knowledge, familiarity with AI tools and applications, perceived competence in using AI, and your opinions on training needs.
There are no known risks or discomforts associated with participating in this study. Some questions might cause minor discomfort due to self-reflection, but you are free to skip any questions you prefer not to answer. Benefits While there are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study, your responses will help contribute to a better understanding of AI literacy among academic librarians and inform the development of relevant professional training programs.
Your responses will be anonymous, and no personally identifiable information will be collected. Data will be stored securely on password-protected devices or encrypted cloud storage services, with access limited to the research team. The results of this study will be reported in aggregate form, and no individual responses will be identifiable. Your information collected for this project will NOT be used or shared for future research, even if we remove the identifiable information like your name.
Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may choose to withdraw at any time without any consequences. Please note that if you decide to withdraw from the study, the data that has already been collected from you will be kept and used. This is necessary to maintain the integrity of the study and ensure that the data collected is reliable and valid.
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact the principal investigator, Leo Lo, at [email protected] . If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, or about what you should do in case of any harm to you, or if you want to obtain information or offer input, please contact the UNM Office of the IRB (OIRB) at (505) 277-2644 or irb.unm.edu
By clicking “I agree” below, you acknowledge that you have read and understood the information provided above, had an opportunity to ask questions, and voluntarily agree to participate.
I agree (1)
I do not agree (2)
Skip To: End of Survey If Q1.1 = I do not agree
End of Block: Block 1
Start of Block: Knowledge and Familiarity
(AI) refers to the development of computer systems and software that can perform tasks that would typically require human intelligence. These tasks may include problem-solving, learning, understanding natural language, recognizing patterns, perception, and decision-making
Please rate your overall understanding of AI concepts and principles (using a Likert scale, e.g., 1 = very low, 5 = very high)
Q2.2 On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate your understanding of generative AI ? (1 = not at all knowledgeable, 5 = extremely knowledgeable)
Q2.3 Rate your familiarity with generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, DALL-E, etc.) (using a Likert scale, e.g., 1 = not familiar, 5 = very familiar)
Q2.4 Which of the following AI technologies or applications have you encountered or used in your role as an academic librarian? (Select all that apply)
Q2.5 For each of the following AI concepts, indicate your understanding of the concept by selecting the appropriate response.
I don’t know what it is (1) | I know what it is but can’t explain it (2) | I can explain it at a basic level (3) | I can explain it in detail (4) | |
Machine Learning (1) | ||||
Natural Language Processing (NLP) (2) | ||||
Neural Network (3) | ||||
Deep Learning (4) | ||||
Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) (5) |
Q2.6 Which of the following generative AI tools have you used at least a few times? (Select all that apply)
Display This Question:
If If Which of the following generative AI tools have you used at least a few times? (Select all that a… q://QID5/SelectedChoicesCount Is Greater Than 0
Q2.7 Have you ever paid for a premium version of at least one of the AI tools (for example, ChatGPT Plus; or Mid Journey subscription plan, etc.)
Q2.8 How frequently do you use generative AI tools in your professional work? (Select one)
Several times per week (2)
A few times per month (4)
Monthly (5)
Less than once a month (6)
Q2.9 For what purposes do you use generative AI tools in your professional work? (Select all that apply)
Q2.10 On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate how reliable generative AI tools have been in fulfilling your professional needs? (1 = not at all reliable, 5 = extremely reliable)
Please explain your choice.
1 (1) __________________________________________________
2 (2) __________________________________________________
3 (3) __________________________________________________
4 (4) __________________________________________________
5 (5) __________________________________________________
Q2.11 What level of concern do you have for the following potential challenges in implementing generative AI technologies in academic libraries? (Rate each challenge on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = not at all concerned and 5 = extremely concerned)
1 (1) | 2 (2) | 3 (3) | 4 (4) | 5 (5) | |
Obtaining adequate funding and resources for AI implementation (1) | |||||
Ethical concerns, such as bias and fairness (2) | |||||
Intellectual property and copyright issues (3) | |||||
Staff resistance or lack of buy-in (4) | |||||
Quality and accuracy of generated content (5) | |||||
Ensuring accessibility and inclusivity of AI tools for all users (6) | |||||
Potential job displacement due to automation (7) | |||||
Data privacy and security (8) | |||||
Technical expertise and resource requirements (9) | |||||
Other (please specify) (10) |
Q2.12 How frequently do you use generative AI tools in your personal life ? (Select one)
End of Block: Knowledge and Familiarity
Start of Block: Perceived Competence and Gaps in AI Literacy
Q3.1 On a scale of 1 to 5, how confident are you in your ability to evaluate the ethical implications of using AI in your library? (1 = not at all confident, 5 = extremely confident)
Q3.2 On a scale of 1 to 5, how confident are you in your ability to participate in discussions about AI integration within your library? (1 = not at all confident, 5 = extremely confident)
Q3.3 On a scale of 1 to 5, how confident are you in your ability to collaborate with colleagues on AI-related projects in your library? (1 = not at all confident, 5 = extremely confident)
Q3.4 On a scale of 1 to 5, how confident are you in your ability to troubleshoot issues related to AI tools and applications used in your library? (1 = not at all confident, 5 = extremely confident)
Q3.5 On a scale of 1 to 5, how confident are you in your ability to provide guidance to library users about AI resources and tools ? (1 = not at all confident, 5 = extremely confident)
End of Block: Perceived Competence and Gaps in AI Literacy
Start of Block: Training on Generative AI for Librarians
Q4.1 Have you ever participated in any training or professional development programs focused on generative AI?
If Q4.1 = Yes
Q4.2 Please briefly describe the nature and content of the training or professional development program(s) you attended.
________________________________________________________________
Q4.3 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “ I feel adequately prepared to use generative AI tools in my professional work as a librarian .” (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
Q4.4 In which of the following areas do you feel the need for additional training or professional development related to AI? (Select all that apply)
Q4.5 What types of professional development opportunities related to AI would be most beneficial to you? (Select all that apply)
Q4.6 How important do you think it is for academic librarians to receive training on generative AI tools and applications in the next 12 months ? (1 = not at all important, 5 = extremely important)
End of Block: Training on Generative AI for Librarians
Start of Block: Desired Use of Generative AI in Libraries
Q5.1 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “ I believe generative AI tools have the potential to benefit library services and operations .” (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
Q5.2 How important do you think it is for your library to invest in the exploration and implementation of generative AI tools ? (1 = not at all important, 5 = extremely important)
Q5.3 If you have any additional thoughts or suggestions on how your library could or should use (or not use) generative AI tools, please share them here.
Q5.4 How soon do you think your library should prioritize implementing generative AI tools and applications? (Select one)
Immediately (1)
Within the next 6 months (2)
Within the next year (3)
Within the next 2–3 years (4)
More than 3 years from now (5)
Not a priority at all (6)
Q5.5 In your opinion, how prepared is your library to adopt generative AI tools and applications in the next 12 months? (1 = not at all prepared, 5 = extremely prepared)
Q5.6 To what extent do you think generative AI tools and applications will have a significant impact on academic libraries within the next 12 months ? (1 = no impact, 5 = major impact)
Q5.7 How urgent do you feel it is for your library to address the potential ethical and privacy concerns related to the use of generative AI tools and applications? (1 = not at all urgent, 5 = extremely urgent)
End of Block: Desired Use of Generative AI in Libraries
Start of Block: Demographic
Q6.1 In which type of academic institution is your library located? (Select one)
Community college (1)
College or university (primarily undergraduate) (2)
College or university (graduate and undergraduate) (3)
Research university (4)
Specialized or professional school (e.g., law, medical) (5)
Other (please specify) (6) __________________________________________________
Q6.2 Is your library an ARL member library?
Q6.3 Approximately how many students are enrolled at your institution? (Select one)
Fewer than 1,000 (1)
1,000–4,999 (2)
5,000–9,999 (3)
10,000–19,999 (4)
20,000–29,999 (5)
30,000 or more (6)
Q6.4 What is your current role or position in your organization? (Select one)
Senior management (e.g. Director, Dean, associate dean/director) (1)
Middle management (e.g. department head, supervisor, coordinator) (2)
Specialist or professional (e.g., librarian, analyst, consultant) (3)
Support staff or administrative (4)
Other (please specify) (5) __________________________________________________
Q6.5 In which area of academic librarianship do you primarily work? (Select one)
Administration or management (1)
Reference and research services (2)
Technical services (e.g., acquisitions, cataloging, metadata) (3)
Collection development and management (4)
Library instruction and information literacy (5)
Electronic resources and digital services (6)
Systems and IT services (7)
Archives and special collections (8)
Outreach, marketing, and communications (9)
Other (please specify) (10) __________________________________________________
Q6.6 How many years of experience do you have as a library employee?
Less than 1 year (1)
1–5 years (2)
6–10 years (3)
11–15 years (4)
16–20 years (5)
More than 20 years (6)
Q6.7 What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Select one)
High school diploma or equivalent (1)
Some college or associate degree (2)
Bachelor’s degree (3)
Master’s degree in library and information science (e.g., MLIS, MSLS) (4)
Master’s degree in another field (5)
Doctoral degree (e.g., PhD, EdD) (6)
Other (please specify) (7) __________________________________________________
Q6.8 What is your gender? (Select one)
Non-binary / third gender (3)
Prefer not to say (4)
Q6.9 What is your age range?
Under 25 (1)
65 and above (5)
Q6.10 How do you describe your ethnicity? (Select one or more)
End of Block: Demographic
Start of Block: End of Survey
Q7.1 Thank you for participating in our survey!
Your input is incredibly valuable to us and will contribute to our understanding of AI literacy among academic librarians. We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to share your experiences and opinions. The information gathered will help inform future professional development opportunities and address potential gaps in AI knowledge and skills.
We will carefully analyze the responses and share the findings with the academic library community. If you have any further comments or questions about the survey, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected].
Once again, thank you for your contribution to this important research. Your insights will help shape the future of AI in academic libraries.
Best regards,
University of New Mexico
End of Block: End of Survey
* Leo S. Lo is Dean, College of University Libraries and Learning Sciences at the University of New Mexico, email: [email protected] . ©2024 Leo S. Lo, Attribution-NonCommercial (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) CC BY-NC.
Contact ACRL for article usage statistics from 2010-April 2017.
2024 |
January: 0 |
February: 0 |
March: 0 |
April: 0 |
May: 0 |
June: 3 |
July: 0 |
© 2024 Association of College and Research Libraries , a division of the American Library Association
Print ISSN: 0010-0870 | Online ISSN: 2150-6701
ALA Privacy Policy
ISSN: 2150-6701
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Revised on November 20, 2023. A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research. A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods, but quantitative methods are ...
Case studies play a significant role in knowledge development across various disciplines. Analysis of cases provides an avenue for researchers to explore phenomena within their context based on the collected data. Analysis of qualitative data from case study research can contribute to knowledge development.
Purpose of Case Study. The purpose of a case study is to provide a detailed analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. A case study is a qualitative research method that involves the in-depth exploration and analysis of a particular case, which can be an individual, group, organization, event, or community.
A case study is one of the most commonly used methodologies of social research. This article attempts to look into the various dimensions of a case study research strategy, the different epistemological strands which determine the particular case study type and approach adopted in the field, discusses the factors which can enhance the effectiveness of a case study research, and the debate ...
Case study research consists of a detailed investigation, often with empirical material collected over a period of time from a well-defined case to provide an analysis of the context and processes involved in the phenomenon. ... This article is written with a specific purpose to provide a case study guide to research students of business and ...
Case study is a research methodology, typically seen in social and life sciences. There is no one definition of case study research.1 However, very simply… 'a case study can be defined as an intensive study about a person, a group of people or a unit, which is aimed to generalize over several units'.1 A case study has also been described as an intensive, systematic investigation of a ...
The purpose of case study research is twofold: (1) to provide descriptive information and (2) to suggest theoretical relevance. Rich description enables an in-depth or sharpened understanding of the case. It is unique given one characteristic: case studies draw from more than one data source. Case studies are inherently multimodal or mixed ...
A Case study is: An in-depth research design that primarily uses a qualitative methodology but sometimes includes quantitative methodology. Used to examine an identifiable problem confirmed through research. Used to investigate an individual, group of people, organization, or event. Used to mostly answer "how" and "why" questions.
A case study is a type of research method. In case studies, the unit of analysis is a case. The case typically provides a detailed account of a situation that usually focuses on a conflict or complexity that one might encounter in the workplace. Case studies help explain the process by which a unit (a person, department, business, organization, ...
Researchers, economists, and others frequently use case studies to answer questions across a wide spectrum of disciplines, from analyzing decades of climate data for conservation efforts to developing new theoretical frameworks in psychology. Learn about the different types of case studies, their benefits, and examples of successful case studies.
Abstract. This chapter explores case study as a major approach to research and evaluation. After first noting various contexts in which case studies are commonly used, the chapter focuses on case study research directly Strengths and potential problematic issues are outlined and then key phases of the process.
The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case ...
A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table 5 ), the ...
Résumé. Case study is a common methodology in the social sciences (management, psychology, science of education, political science, sociology). A lot of methodological papers have been dedicated to case study but, paradoxically, the question "what is a case?" has been less studied.
A case study is a research method where a specific instance, event, or situation is deeply examined to gain insights into real-world complexities. It involves detailed analysis of context, data, and variables to understand patterns, causes, and effects, often used in various disciplines for in-depth exploration.
The definitions of case study evolved over a period of time. Case study is defined as "a systematic inquiry into an event or a set of related events which aims to describe and explain the phenomenon of interest" (Bromley, 1990).Stoecker defined a case study as an "intensive research in which interpretations are given based on observable concrete interconnections between actual properties ...
Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews). The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient's personal history). In psychology, case studies are ...
Find out the purpose of a case study and how it can provide valuable insights and inform decision-making processes in various fields. Learn the steps involved in conducting a case study, from identifying the research question to analyzing the data and generating meaningful conclusions. Discover the strengths and limitations of case studies and how they contribute to the advancement of ...
A case study is a research process aimed at learning about a subject, an event or an organization. Case studies are use in business, the social sciences and healthcare. A case study may focus on one observation or many. It can also examine a series of events or a single case. An effective case study tells a story and provides a conclusion.
A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organisation, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research. A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods, but quantitative methods are sometimes also used.
The main purpose of case studies, therefore, is to find a real-life application of a theoretical concept or solution. Most of the time, problems are or can be solved theoretically. ... As a student, the case study is one of the more effective research techniques. We hope that with these tips, choosing and writing case studies will definitely be ...
Case studies are often used in the exploratory phase of research to gather qualitative data. They can also be used to create, support, or refute a hypothesis and guide future research. For instance, a marketing professional might conduct a case study to discover why a viral ad campaign was so successful.
An exploratory case study is a very specific type of material that has the aim of encompassing a set of data as an initial research attempt for the purpose of identifying possible patterns. Such patterns, if any exist, can help create a model based on the data and then extrapolate it for further analysis, application, or research.
The cardiovascular case study demonstrates the applicability of the steps to developing a research plan. This paper used an existing study to demonstrate the relevance of the guide. We encourage researchers to incorporate this guide at the study design stage in order to elevate the quality of future real-world evidence.
This case study explores how a leading global financial services company partnered with HiddenLayer to fortify its machine-learning models against potential adversarial threats. With over 50 million users and billions of transactions annually, the company faced the dual challenge of maintaining an optimal customer experience while combating ...
A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table.
The scope of the study explains what the researchers are examining and what environment they are studying. This article explains the general purpose of the research scope, how it informs the broader study at hand, and how it can be incorporated in a research paper to establish the necessary transparency and rigor for your research audience.
Her current study, "Effect of Low, Moderate, and High Intensity Exercise on Executive Function, Functional Impairment, and Symptom Severity in ADHD," is designed to answer intensity-related research questions. ... Edmondson developed expertise in using electronic health record data for the secondary purpose of research. In addition to her ...
Summary. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among 10- to 25-year-olds. 1 Suicidal behaviors are three to four times more likely among youths in the juvenile legal system 2-5 than among their peers outside the system. Fifty percent of youths in juvenile detention experience suicidal ideation. 6 Because of social and structural factors, including racism, 7 Black youths are ...
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current AI literacy levels of academic librarians and identify areas where further training and development may be needed. The findings will help inform the design of targeted professional development programs and contribute to the understanding of AI literacy in the library profession.